Man-made objects mmm

[etherealfionna]

I watched this documentary last night on TV, about women who fall (passionately) in love with various objects. At first I thought it would be freak-watching, yet of the two women who feature most in it, both came across as actually pleasant and interesting people. Except that they have sex with inanimate objects. Like the Eiffel Tower. Or the

Comments

[bogwitch64]

There was a TV show on here in the States, Boston Legal. The show featured some very odd characters as part of the ensemble cast. One of the characters was a woman like those in the documentary you describe--a woman who loved inanimate objects. It was humorously, yet sensitively portrayed, and it made me really wonder about the psyches of those who have these attractions.

Interesting.

Nice to see you in here again! :)

[etherealfionna]

Maybe the most startling part was how few of them there are - although the estimate was based entirely on an internet support group (which had 40 members worldwide).

Nice to see you in here again!

Thanks :) I'm going to try and write here more often, but then again I always say that....

[bogwitch64]

Well, I certainly hope you do!

...write here more often, not fall in lust with inanimate objects, I mean.

:)

[dpolicar]

Yeah.

So, I have recently been cast in Albee's The Goat, which has been prompting a lot of thinking along related lines.

Mostly I come to the conclusion that "weird" is all in what you're used to, and once a practice starts to feel familiar it relatively irrevocably stops being "weird."

But there remains a big gulf between acknowledging that a given practice is part of the range of human experience on the one hand, and finding it compelling (sexually or otherwise) on the other.

Really, they are separate dimensions.

Which kind of sucks for the people who find compelling things that they do not consider within the acceptable range of human experience.

[etherealfionna]

But there remains a big gulf between acknowledging that a given practice is part of the range of human experience on the one hand, and finding it compelling (sexually or otherwise) on the other.

A comment I found on a forum discussing this documentary brought up the valuable point that to deny that this 'objectum sexuality' is different from other sexualities opens the door to the slippery slope argument so beloved of conservatives.

[dpolicar]

My response to this got very long and somewhat digressive, so I moved it here.

[etherealfionna]

Read it there, going to reply here.

I am in no way arguing that there is merit in the slippery slope argument, especially not when it comes to sexual partners, but it is used, and seems to sway a lot of people.

What I took from that forum comment, which is anyway only tangentially linked to your first comment, is that while we are still fighting on one front, then keep the fight on that one front. Of course, now you've made me change my mind again :)

There is a difference between marrying a consenting adult and marrying the Eiffel Tower, and while personally I can't find a rational reason to deny someone from marrying large steel structures, I can understand that for marriage to have equally standing in the law, the law will have to be drastically re-written. Or maybe that is the rational reason for denying someone *legally* marrying large steel structures. Hmm. This is basically your point about drawing lines on the slopes, I suppose, and in my defense I will say that I am a detail-oriented engineer.

The Goat sounds like a really

[oletheros]

i thought you might find this interesting.